Use a ResourceOwner to track buffer pins in all cases.
Historically, we've allowed auxiliary processes to take buffer pins without tracking them in a ResourceOwner. However, that creates problems for error recovery. In particular, we've seen multiple reports of assertion crashes in the startup process when it gets an error while holding a buffer pin, as for example if it gets ENOSPC during a write. In a non-assert build, the process would simply exit without releasing the pin at all. We've gotten away with that so far just because a failure exit of the startup process translates to a database crash anyhow; but any similar behavior in other aux processes could result in stuck pins and subsequent problems in vacuum. To improve this, institute a policy that we must *always* have a resowner backing any attempt to pin a buffer, which we can enforce just by removing the previous special-case code in resowner.c. Add infrastructure to make it easy to create a process-lifespan AuxProcessResourceOwner and clear out its contents at appropriate times. Replace existing ad-hoc resowner management in bgwriter.c and other aux processes with that. (Thus, while the startup process gains a resowner where it had none at all before, some other aux process types are replacing an ad-hoc resowner with this code.) Also use the AuxProcessResourceOwner to manage buffer pins taken during StartupXLOG and ShutdownXLOG, even when those are being run in a bootstrap process or a standalone backend rather than a true auxiliary process. In passing, remove some other ad-hoc resource owner creations that had gotten cargo-culted into various other places. As far as I can tell that was all unnecessary, and if it had been necessary it was incomplete, due to lacking any provision for clearing those resowners later. (Also worth noting in this connection is that a process that hasn't called InitBufferPoolBackend has no business accessing buffers; so there's more to do than just add the resowner if we want to touch buffers in processes not covered by this patch.) Although this fixes a very old bug, no back-patch, because there's no evidence of any significant problem in non-assert builds. Patch by me, pursuant to a report from Justin Pryzby. Thanks to Robert Haas and Kyotaro Horiguchi for reviews. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20180627233939.GA10276@telsasoft.com
Showing
Please register or sign in to comment